The spur of the moment theft of a motorcycle or bicycle, by an occasional malevolent or impecunious miscreant in a schoolyard, has long since been supplanted by the organized theft of mainly the most desirable motorcycles, by determined, if not professional thieves. This invention is particularly directed to a security stand for motorcycles, not only because they are generally more expensive than bicycles, but because the most stealable motorcycles are heavy, and have a front fork in which heavy springs bias the front wheel so strongly that theft of even just the front wheel is impractical when the motorcycle is locked in the stand of this invention. As will presently be apparent, this would not be true for removal of just the front wheel of a bicycle locked in this stand, even though the frame of the bicycle was locked. Moreover, considering the fact that this stand is neither inexpensive, nor portable once it is assembled, its use will be limited to the locking of only the most valuable motorcycles, such as are commonly deemed by intrepid thieves to be worth the risk of being apprehended and convicted.
Owners of high-priced motorcycles are only too well aware of the fact that a skilled and well-equipped thief requires less than sixty seconds to steal their prized motorcycles. When such a thief has assistance, the time required is even less, with the added factor that two strong and able-bodied thieves can lift up a motorcycle not secured to the ground and place it in a van, even if both its wheels are locked.
It should be borne in mind that the thief for whom this invention is conceived, can steal a motorcycle no matter how carefully it is secured, if the thief is given more than sixty seconds of reasonably assured quiet and inattention. Under such a circumstance, even a heavy chain such as is diagrammatically illustrated in U.S. Pat. No. 3,881,680 presents no serious obstacle to a cutting torch, even if one ignores the fact that the conventional padlock shown would almost certainly be more vulnerable than the chain. As recognized in U.S. Pat. No. 3,863,767, a padlock is generally most vulnerable, being easily defeated by acid poured into the lock, or frozen by a cryogen, until the hasp is brittle, and then fractured (see middle of Col. 7). These now "standard tampering techniques" are favored because they are quiet and quick, and do not require carrying a miniature oxy-acetylene or similar torch, or other specialized tools, the possession of which may be a little difficult to explain to law enforcement authorities.
As has been stated, and as will be readily recognized, a proficient thief, given enough time, can mount a determined assault on any security stand and force it to yield its prize. A stand deemed successfully secure, would be one which dissuades such an assault in the first place. The best security stand is the untouched stand. If the stand does not always succeed in dissuading such an assault, it should make it eminently evident that a successful assault will necessitate more time than a thief might reasonably plan to allot, and the assault will necessarily be more noisy than the thief had anticipated. Finally, it should be apparent to the thief that even a successful high-risk assault on the stand presents so great a risk that the motorcycle will be damaged, that, on balance, he is dissuaded from making the assault.
As self-evident as the foregoing observations may appear, it is apparent that they are not used as the principal guiding tenets in the design of most prior art security stands. For example, U.S. Pat. No. 3,942,646 shows a hollow plastic insert in a cast concrete block, and a bicycle secured thereto by means of a chain and padlock which clearly do not pretend to afford more than a modicum of invulnerability. In contrast, U.S. Pat. No. 3,881,680 utilizes a heavy chain and a padlock. Obviously, a link of a heavy chain takes longer to cut or freeze than a link of a light chain. But a thief attacks the weakest link in a security system. Neither of the foregoing devices significantly dissuades an assault, and each is susceptible to embrittlement by freezing with a cryogen, or to destruction by acid poured into the lock. Only U.S. Pat. No. 3,863,767 provides reasonable protection against a competent thief, and it does so for a bicycle utilizing steel members, in a manner which does not make the stand readily usable for a motorcycle in which an engine is mounted in the frame. It is unnecessary to consider locking stands from the days prior to modern day determination in thievery, such as the stand disclosed in U.S. Pat. No. 1,202,444 which stand can be defeated with a makeshift hacksaw, or a blow with a heavy hammer.